A
Anrakyr
Guest
Your catacism was updated recently as its no longer the case.
- Status
N
nfinke
Guest
Right I said I can’t really get behind the idea of an update to the Catechism being all it takes to completely alter 2000 years of church teaching. It’s not like we’re talking about a clarification of a prayer tradition, were talking about going from, “it’s ok to execute murderers” to “it’s not ok to execute murderers”. I don’t see how that can be valid if Church tradition is considered on par with scripture itself in terms of revelation. And if we’re saying the church changes teachings based on the light of the times, well we might as well just add and subtract from the Bible at that point. The way I see it the entire point of divine revelation and the word of God is that its moral truths are eternal do not change with the times any more than the laws of gravity.
Saying “well the Catechism changed” isn’t really an effective response to that concern.
Saying “well the Catechism changed” isn’t really an effective response to that concern.
Last edited:
C
Convert3
Guest
I changed my thoughts on the death penalty before I converted. I used to support it, but no longer do. I’d rather see someone guilty of such a violent crime suffer in isolation. But now, I want them to repent and be saved. The longer they live the better the chance of salvation. We have a priest who ministers to a maximum security prison. Sure, some come to mass or bible studies just for time out of their cell, but some souls have truly converted. That’s what I want for them.
A
Anrakyr
Guest
You make some excellent points but you are glossing over why it was changed.
Let me put it this way:
We killed prisoners for two reasons; because they were so evil they couldn’t be redeemed. No amount of reform would work.
Second; because the crime was so severe the damage the individual could do if they got out again had to be prevented.
Now thankfully as the second most deals with war criminals thats not something we have to worry about on a normal basis. If those people got out or were rescued they could rally an army. That’s not always the case mind but it happened.
In the average case, we are talking about your run of the mill murderer (not to downplay murder). Many states take a life for a life. Many places in the world too. Its a deterrent in theory.
However from what we know of mental health and disease we see that no amount of deterrent will help a broken mind. We can reform these people even if that means they won’t be let out for a long time.
As such the need to put people down is dramatically reduced.
Furthermore, as technology progresses we’ve been learning about errors in court and justice resulting in a staggering amount of innocent people on the block. It behooves us to not use a form of punishment we can’t attempt to undo.
Death is so far permanent.
S
Shasta-Rose
Guest
Yes, some people are evil through and through, and I think most of those on death row are exactly where they need to be. Most of the time, any more, the death penalty is not handed down. A criminal really has to be the worst of the worst to receive it.
A
Anrakyr
Guest
Often the ‘worse of the worse’ is mentally ill.
N
nfinke
Guest
I would say those are decent points, with the exception that I would say, at least in the American system which I am familiar with, with the advancement of technology like DNA testing, and the high standard of guilt, the odds of a man today being Innocent yet sentenced to death are very small, without a doubt the smallest they’ve been in history. I don’t think the chance of a man being wrongly sentenced in the past should have bearing on what we do today.
But where I differ is I don’t think the primary purpose of punishment is included on your list, being administering justice.
Of all the moral laws God gives, the vast majority are centered around the sanctity and dignity of human life, and that as such the will full destruction of it needs to be met with the ultimate punishment. God declares to Noah that even a beast who kills a human needs to pay with it’s life (Gen 9:5) and reiterates this when giving the ten commandments at Sinai (ex 21:28). Obviously there is no such thing as redeeming an ox or a lion. It seems to me just a matter of justice.
And although death is permanent, having a date put over your head is a very sobering thing that drives many many people to repent. Though obviously not an infallible source, Aquinas wrote to the effect that if a man is faced with his own death, and this doesn’t spur his heart to repent his crime and draw away from cruelty, it’s very possible that nothing could inspire him to do so. I think that’s a pretty compelling argument.
If the Catechism said the death penalty was explicitly always evil, I might be saying something different.
But where I differ is I don’t think the primary purpose of punishment is included on your list, being administering justice.
Of all the moral laws God gives, the vast majority are centered around the sanctity and dignity of human life, and that as such the will full destruction of it needs to be met with the ultimate punishment. God declares to Noah that even a beast who kills a human needs to pay with it’s life (Gen 9:5) and reiterates this when giving the ten commandments at Sinai (ex 21:28). Obviously there is no such thing as redeeming an ox or a lion. It seems to me just a matter of justice.
And although death is permanent, having a date put over your head is a very sobering thing that drives many many people to repent. Though obviously not an infallible source, Aquinas wrote to the effect that if a man is faced with his own death, and this doesn’t spur his heart to repent his crime and draw away from cruelty, it’s very possible that nothing could inspire him to do so. I think that’s a pretty compelling argument.
If the Catechism said the death penalty was explicitly always evil, I might be saying something different.
A
Anrakyr
Guest
Again times change.
A
Anrakyr
Guest
Its no sudden.
The study of mental health has upended many theologies in the Vatican.
The bottom line is killing someone isn’t necessary, if its not then its murder which is a sin.
If you slice the throat of someone who broke into your house after knocking them out its still murder. You can justify it was ‘for your own safety’ all you want doesn’t mean it was. You could have restrained the person till the authorities arrive.
Now we know more about mental breaks it complicates the morality from evil to insane.
Killing a mad man may sound good in practice but does nothing to solve the creation and prevention of.
M
MikeInVA
Guest
Please elaborate. I have never heard of this.
A
Anrakyr
Guest
Suicide for instance doesn’t mean you are going to hell. It’s a bad thing to happen but it isn’t always a sin.
L
Londoner
Guest
Most Catholics are against the death penalty. Strangely, not many of them seem to be on this forum. Or perhaps they are and they’ve just lost the will to keep arguing about it. I’m curious to know what you hope to achieve by asking this question now. There are already dozens of threads on this topic on here, mostly going around in the same circles. There is a current thread on here with 828 posts: Church Teaching on Death Penalty
N
neophyte
Guest
As am I. Church teaching is that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil, and that the civil government may legitimately use it if it’s necessary to protect against the evildoer.
As others have pointed out here, the Church has not changed its basic teaching, nor could it. The Church has merely stated that the conditions justifying the death penalty no longer exist in modern society. If those conditions once again existed, that would be another matter entirely, but fact is, they do exist. If you disagree with this, you are putting your own judgment against that of the Church, which understands society, human nature, and the just application of Catholic principles far better than either you or I do.
I would have great difficulties if I were ever called to be a juror in a murder trial for which the death penalty might be one of the options. I would have to tell the judge that my church teaches against it in today’s society, at which point he would probably excuse me from jury duty. I had to disclose my inability to be impartial one time where child welfare and custody were being decided, and the judge dismissed me on the spot.
L
lil_user
Guest
Remember always: sentire cum Ecclesia.
The death penalty has never been condemned by the Church.
However, today the Church explicitly teaches that it is inadmissible, and to this we owe religious submission of mind and will. We don’t have to like it, just to be humble and accept it.
The Church in her wisdom provides some explanations to this:
To stubbornly oppose this is to oppose the mind of the Church and its teaching authority. That’s not exactly a recipe for spiritual health.
Last edited:
L
lil_user
Guest
A sin is always a sin. Whether you are guilty of the sin is a different story.
Today in the case of suicide we have a greater hope that the person did not incur in the guilt of a grave sin because we have a greater understanding of the psychology and we think one or more necessary conditions of a mortal sin may be missing (full knowledge, deliberate consent, or both). I am grateful to God for this. There is still a great stigma on mental health issues in many societies.
The Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals, nor contradict itself. But we do understand things better.
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
When Peter attempted to murder one of the men who came to arrest Jesus in the Garden of Gesthemene, Jesus warned Peter, “if you live by the sword, you will die by the sword.” Jesus was citing Genesis 9:6 that applied Capital Punishment to anyone who took an innocent life, which was BEFORE the Law was given by God to Moses in the 10 Commandments. While the Law was given to the nation of Israel, including the command “You shall not murder,” when Jesus “fulfilled the Law and the Prophets” this is why the Church does not have to worship on the seventh day (the Sabbath). But the command not to murder, and the command for Capital Punishment, preceded the time of Moses by centuries. So, it applied to ALL time, including the present day. This is why Jesus warned Peter, because Capital Punishment was the law in the Roman Empire for the crime of murder. So, Jesus affirmed Capital Punishment, especially if it is the law of the land for murder. But it is not the same thing as murder, since Capital Punishment is about justice, but not the taking of innocent life. Murderers are not “innocent” since they take innocent lives of people who do nothing wrong.
Last edited:
R
Roguish
Guest
Historically the RCC has always supported judicious use of the death penalty, and there have been very good reasons for that – reasons that have not been invalidated by modern times. The Church’s recent stance (against the DP) is a incongruous novelty. Don’t feel bad or diffident about taking the view that the DP is a legitimate punishment under certain circumstances.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Apparently in this time and place some consider the catechism optional
C
ConcernedConvert
Guest
I have three catechisms that day the opposite.
- Status